I will offer a reward to any man who can find me a...
a) fishibian
b) amphibitile
c) reptibird
The missing links deal the death blow to evolution kwycke, give it up!
The fossil record actually testifies strongly again evolution and in favor of biblical creationism and catastrophism (aka: punctuated equilibrium).
The fossil record reveals an absence of life forms in the lower 2/3 of the eath's crust (the Precambrian period.) Then suddenly abundant numbers of advanced life forms appear. The oldest rocks to contain undisputable fossils are found in the Cambrian sedimentary deposits. Obviously, if evolution where true, we would expect to see billions of evelutionary ancestors of Cambrian life in Precambrian rock, however, we don't!
Renowned biochemist Duane T. Gish states: "Not a single indisputable, multi-celled fossil has ever been found in Precambrian rocks! Certainly it can be said without fear of contradiction that the evolutionary ancestors of the Cambrian fauna, if they ever existed, have never been found."
How do you explain this away?!
What the fossil record shows is that life appeared abruptly in great diversity, complexity and abundance without any ancestors from which to evolve. Clearly, this is NOT evidence for a gradual, organic evolution process. This is best explained as supernatural creation, period.
"In his debates, much of Gish's diatribe is directed towards the fossil record and the alleged lack of transitional forms between earlier and later forms of life. Gish has admitted that if transitional forms can be shown to exist, then creationism is dead (see Debates-Parrish 1991). Creationists, including Gish, are able to deny the existence of transitional forms because they use their own home-made definition of the term. For example, Gish claims that to be intermediate, fossils must be on a direct line of descent with each other and that transitional creatures would have to possess half-formed, and therefore useless, body parts (Gish 1985, 1995).
But evolution does not happen that way and the well-known theory of punctuated equilibrium solves many supposed problems with the fossil record (Gould and Eldredge 1972)"
"Gish seems to be
guilty of systematic distortion and misrepresentation.
When his errors are publicly corrected, he tends to continue their repetition. Why does Gish do this? Obviously, his actions promote the cause of creationism. Most of the people in debate audiences only hear Gish once and leave with a favorable impression of his arguments. Few people would have the patience to follow Gish around on his debate tours and catch him at his tricks. The rare occasions when he's been caught red-handed are more than compensated by the many times he's gotten away with it. "
What a reputable fellow!
And...
from Pilmer vs Gish Debate:
"And I use our friend's book, or booklet -- it's more like a comic -- which is called "Are You Being Brainwashed?" [Plimer gets the title wrong, I think] I go to page 8. There is a diagram there that says,
"precambrian: void of fossils." That is a lie. The precambrian is not void of fossils; the precambrian is extremely rich in fossils.
He [Gish] has come to the country where there are many precambrian fossils going back to 3 thousand 3 hundred million years ago.
On the same diagram, he says the "earth's crust" is "void of fossils."
That is a lie. Every fossil found on this planet is from the earth's crust. That is from his book, "Are You Being Brainwashed?" page 8. We also see on the same page, the Cambrian; a geological time period some time ago. And I quote, "The billions of fossils found are all of highly complex forms of life."
That is a lie. There on one simple diagram we have
three lies. That is their scientific publication. [The diagram appears to be unchanged in the current copy.]
We turn now to page 9. And we read, "not a single indisputable multicellular fossil has been found anywhere in the world in a rock supposedly older than Cambrian rocks."
That is a lie. But what (?) we see is a repetition of these lies, all the time. "You don't find fossils in old rocks; you don't find fossils in old rocks; you don't find fossils in old rocks." And eventually someone believes them.
So we've read two or three (?) pages and we've got ourselves
four lies. And we have an interesting situation here.
And continuing with page 9, "billions of highly complex animals... just suddenly appear, with no signs of gradual development from lower forms."
That is a lie. So we now have 55 words and
5 lies.
One lie every 11 words in his publication
Gish is a great person to use an example...a liar, who knows nothing!
And from some other articles:
"William Thwaites and Frank Awbrey (1991) state:
"We...were convinced at first that
he must be a deliberate liar, but now we have concluded that he is not. ...
Gish says only what supports his belief. In his mind, that cannot possibly be a lie. ... We also think that sometimes he says what he wishes were true. If he wishes he hadn't said something, then he didn't say it." [italics in original]
David Milne (1991) states:
"[Gish] says things that are false, now, but I suspect that he no longer even realizes it, or cares. ... He may have known, at one time, that there was something shaky or even devious about his claims, but he's made them so long now, that they have taken on a truth of their own for him."
A lack of integrity, whether deliberate or not, usually damages one's reputation, but instead, Gish's tactics have helped enhance the credibility of the Institute for Creation Research, and probably that of the entire creationist movement. Teachers and scientists struggling with the threat of creationism need to be fully aware of the exact methods used by one of the most popular advocates of creationism.
A campaign based on errors and distortions does not require respect, or the time and effort spent in fighting it. If tactics such as Gish's become common knowledge, we can perhaps begin to close the creationist chapter and get back to the work of real science."
